RealGM Top 100 List #34

[Dr Positivity]

Yes, but the thing is, the longer a team has a player, the less "random" they can make that cast. Time should generally help teams improve their supporting cast around a player, both by accumulating the good players one at a time and holding onto them, and by building chemistry, roles, getting the right coach in place, building assets to make a big trade, etc. That's why almost all title teams win with their star in the 2nd half of their career, or if not, a old former superstar helping guide the way

[ElGee]

@drza - some quick data from 2004 to 2008

I've got a 167 player sample size of rotation players (1000 MP+) improving an offense by at least 6.0 pts/100. Here is the breakdown:

Team's performing at 107 ORtg or better without the player
21 times. The average increase was 7.46 pts/100.

Team's performing at 100-107 ORtg without the player
115 times. The average increase was 8.56 pts/100.

Team's performing at 100-107 ORtg without the player
31 times. The average increase was 10.45 pts/100.

So 21 players had a team with a 107 ORtg or better without them and improved it at least 6 points. Of those 21, the average increase was 7.46. 31 players had a team with a 100 ORtg or less, and of the 31, the average increase was 10.45. The data support the general trend.

Looking at specific players, Bryant has the biggest change over the period (+18.9 in 2006), lifting his team to a 112.6 ORtg. But what happens the next year, when he looks like the same player visually, in the same system, with similar teammates, similar regular and advanced stats, and so on...? He still lifts his team to a comparable 111 ORtg, it's just not +18.9 points, it's only about 6. If there were something inherently important about the raw increase itself, we should have expected the 2007 Lakers to have an ORtg around 122 with Kobe in the game. Obviously, that's not how it works. (OR, your way, you'd have to somehow suggest Kobe was ~12 points worse in 2007. Godspeed with that task.)

Nash reaches the greatest heights in 2005, lifting Pho to 121.7. (!) In 2007, which is IMO Nash's best season, he "only" lifts Phoenix 12.5 points. Again, a big difference in the increase number (5.1 pts worse)...but the final ORtg with him QBing is just under 119...fairly close, especially when we consider how rarified the air is at ~1.2 pts/pos.

Again, the actual level the team is performing at matters. In general, it's harder to lift good teams more than weaker teams because of the distribution of skill sets and available strategies with 1 ball in basketball.

[Fencer reregistered]

...
As for Gervin being a more explosive scorer than Pierce -- were defenses stacked to stop him the way they were in Pierce's iso prime?

Oh hell yeah. He had one year I particularly remember where his front line was George Johnson, Mark Iavaroni, and Reggie Johnson . . . basically three bangers with no shot. He and James Silas were the whole offense; when Silas was hurt, usually Larry Kenon was the second banana and neither was as big a gunner as Antoine Walker. Defenses were keyed on Ice every game.

But what did it mean to key on a wing player in those days, before modern switches and zones?

That said, I'm inclined to buy your view, and further to say that if a guy releases running mid-range shots -- finger roll!!! -- rather than going all the way to the rim, he's avoiding defenders who stand in his way.

[Fencer reregistered]

Gervin is the most deserving of that lot. I prefer Cousy, but Cowens is the one with a chance against Chris Paul(!) for Gawd's sake.

Vote: Gervin
Nominate: Cowens

OK. I'll change my nomination from Cousy to Cowens as well.

[ElGee]

^^^ I'd say check out the effect Allen, Miller, etc. have over the years, and consider that Gervin is a lot like Durant. Look at his team's offenses. Really, he has great value on that end as they ran a lot through or off him (even off ball) and he was a total high-efficiency scoring machine. Nothing to suggest Ice wasn't an excellent offensive wing IMO...

[Fencer reregistered]

But how does that in any way address his high in-season in/out winning percentage and scoring differential impact? That come from 7 different qualifying situations? That measures out as among the best in the last 25 years?

Best among all players, or best among ones who are injured frequently enough to qualify?

[Fencer reregistered]

I'm a bit iffy on that last idea. Walton could fit into almost any team, Paul not quite so much, Bernard King would not work well on a lot of good teams, especially those built on chemistry and defense . . . for that matter, Gervin, much as I loved him when he played and great as his impact was when the team was built around his skill set. He isn't a guy that you can just plug into the 2 guard spot on a team like this year's champion Dallas although that was probably their biggest hole. The impact might very well hurt Dallas rather than helping it (though having a PG like Kidd might make it work -- you couldn't add Gervin to Miami add that successfully either to use the other finalist).

Wasn't trying to equate their level of play. I was saying that be it Walton, Paul or King, that they are so much better than almost everyone else (largely increasing the chance to win a title) is what matters.

I have no idea why you don't think Bernard King in 1984 wouldn't work well on a lot of teams. Same with Gervin...?? Simply because you can come up with radical examples doesn't change their average value to random teams.

To me, the crux of the argument is that longevity matters more than short peak, because with longevity:

* There's a chance to assemble the RIGHT cast around a guy, and have the team grow familiar with each other.
* The guy picks up savvy, postseason-specific intangibles to go with the rest of his merits.

Makes sense to me. If you generally need a few tries before you're seasoned enough to win it all, then it's best that you be consistently good enough to actually get those tries.

Bird, Magic, and Russell were able to take their teams to the championship level almost instantly, but:

* They were Bird, Magic, and Russell.
* They were each coming into a weak league.

[Dr Positivity]

I'm a bit iffy on that last idea. Walton could fit into almost any team, Paul not quite so much, Bernard King would not work well on a lot of good teams, especially those built on chemistry and defense . . . for that matter, Gervin, much as I loved him when he played and great as his impact was when the team was built around his skill set. He isn't a guy that you can just plug into the 2 guard spot on a team like this year's champion Dallas although that was probably their biggest hole. The impact might very well hurt Dallas rather than helping it (though having a PG like Kidd might make it work -- you couldn't add Gervin to Miami add that successfully either to use the other finalist).

Wasn't trying to equate their level of play. I was saying that be it Walton, Paul or King, that they are so much better than almost everyone else (largely increasing the chance to win a title) is what matters.

I have no idea why you don't think Bernard King in 1984 wouldn't work well on a lot of teams. Same with Gervin...?? Simply because you can come up with radical examples doesn't change their average value to random teams.

To me, the crux of the argument is that longevity matters more than short peak, because with longevity:

* There's a chance to assemble the RIGHT cast around a guy, and have the team grow familiar with each other.
* The guy picks up savvy, postseason-specific intangibles to go with the rest of his merits.

Makes sense to me. If you generally need a few tries before you're seasoned enough to win it all, then it's best that you be consistently good enough to actually get those tries.

Bird, Magic, and Russell were able to take their teams to the championship level almost instantly, but:

* They were Bird, Magic, and Russell.
* They were each coming into a weak league.

That seems vaguely important

[Dr Positivity]

The real question naturally isn't whether a 1 or 2 year superprime can be more valuable than someone peaking from 5 to 12 years, since theoretically you could have a 1-2 year stretch that valuable, as you could have the 5 to 12 one being more valuable. We know 1 year of Walton is more valuable than 12 years of Horry. The real argument is where the line gets drawn

As always I'm fine with the opinions that Paul's advantage in prime over guys like Cowens, Reed, Miller, KJ, Hill, Iverson, Cousy etc. is great enough to make that gap. I don't think it is. Paul is the better player but if he's even 10-15% more valuable, it's not enough. Paul isn't enough to take randoms to titles that those guys can only bring to playoff knockouts. Both Paul and that group and everyone else needs GOOD players around them, at least one other all-star most likely, shooters and rebounders, the right coaching, the right chemistry, the right competition. If that's the case for all these guys, I'd rather take the slightly less player in return for time, quite possibly the most valuable asset a team can have

Also in the case of Paul, I think I must be slightly less high on his prime than most. I have him as the 4th most valuable player in 08 and 5th most in 09, behind Lebron, Kobe, Garnett in 08 and Lebron, Kobe, Howard, Wade in 09. Now those are two insanely tough top 5 years. But still. Calling him the 5th best player in 2 years takes some of the shine off

[penbeast0]

Here is how it looks to me using therealbig3's earlier post as a doublecheck:

VOTE

(5)Artis Gilmore – penbeast0, mysticbb, Doctor MJ, lukekarts, drza

Dominique Wilkins – JordansBulls

(4)George Gervin – ElGee, DavidStern, RoyceDa59, Laimbeer

(3)Paul Pierce – therealbig3, Fencer, Dr Mufasa

NOMINATE

Reggie Miller – mysticbb

(5)Dave Cowens – JordansBulls, Dr Mufasa, Laimbeer, penbeast0, Fencer

(3)Chris Paul – ElGee, therealbig3, Doctor MJ

Allen Iverson -- DavidStern

Bill Walton – RoyceDa59

Alonzo Mourning -- drza

[SDChargers#1]

Sorry I don't have time for a full explanation.

Vote: Artis Gilmore
Nominate: Dave Cowens

Personally I don't think you can have guys like Paul on here, who have only had 2 great seasons and haven't even played 7 full seasons yet (and has been injured for significant portions of his career).

The idea of him already being a top 50 player is insulting to the greats who have played the game. But I know people are obsessed with 1-2 year peaks on this forum, so what can I do.

[ElGee]

Well, Fencer's point about team chemistry improving is good, although it's such a minor point. Obviously, we just saw the 08 Celtics post a monster season all coming together out of the woodwork. Great players seem to not need much in that regard -- it's more of role players or bumps in the road for young, inexperienced guys.

Only that issue is moot if the star is the star already. Some guys need playoff reps, others are ready. Russell (1st year), Kareem (2nd year), Walton (3rd, 1st healthy, if you will), Magic (1st season, secondary player), Bird (2nd year), Duncan (2nd year), Wade (3rd year) seem to seriously buck the trend you're arguing here. I mean, a guy is as good as he as good. He gives a team a certain chance to win...I don't see how it matters much if it's the 5th shot or the 1st. Each shot, independently, presents a chance at victory. I presented some numbers on how powerful a higher peak is in basketball to greatly improving that chance...

In terms of the way teams were assembled, you could even argue the 70 Knicks (Debuscherre trade mid 69), the 83 Sixers (Moses) and the 08 Celtics all got it on the first try too. Even the 04 Pistons were basically a second year incarnate. Recently, Kidd's Nets made their first two Finals (about as much as could be asked) and Kobe's Lakers 3 straight Finals and 2 titles (2nd year) with Gasol.

And that just covered 33 title teams (by association) in the last 54 years. Or, if you remove all the repeated titles from the dynasty teams, 12 of the 23 "new" champions are teams I just mentioned.

First time. Tenth time. It doesn't matter if all the ten times aren't as likely to produce a title as the one time.

[ElGee]

Are there any reasons for Gilmore and (especially) Cowens or are people just nominating them because they've been floating around forever?

[Fencer reregistered]

Are there any reasons for Gilmore and (especially) Cowens or are people just nominating them because they've been floating around forever?

I'm going on simplistic resume observation in nominations more than I am in actual list voting. If a guy both got an MVP and led his team to a championship as #1 or #1A, I'm inclined to support him for nomination at this point unless there are clear reasons not to (e.g. Walton's longevity).

I voted Cousy. I flipped to Cowens. I could happily have flipped to Unseld instead. Etc.

[Dr Positivity]

Almost perfect spot for Gilmore IMO. I have him #35 just ahead of Gervin, Cowens, Reed, Dwight, Dominique, etc., players flawed enough for Artis with some warts to get over, but Artis deservingly gets ranked below guys like Barry and Isiah who proved more balls